Senate Healthcare Bill Changing--Still Bad

Senate Democrats have begun to alter their healthcare bill in the hopes of getting the support of 60 Senators to move past filibuster threats. I'll wait on the incomparable Keith Hennessey's detailed analysis (not up on his site yet) and the CBO scoring of the bill to go completely right wing nutjob on it, but there is enough coming out for me to already have some questions.

Firstly--the Senate's dropping of a "Public Option" (theirs was a watered down one already, with healthcare "cooperatives" subbing for a straight up Public Option) is interesting--I imagine Reid didn't have the 60 votes with it in there--otherwise, he wouldn't have scrapped it. That said--the House bill is vastly different. The conference committee to reconcile whatever comes out of the Senate (if anything), with the House bill is going to be bloody among Democrats.

But as for the changes to the Senate legislation, there are two biggies. First, instead of the cooperatives, the Feds would set up two private, but national health care plans modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), in which presumably, the insured would pay a portion of their premium and the federal government would pay a portion (probably the lion's share). Also presumably, the amount one pays in premiums would somehow be tied to one's economic conditions.

The second big change in this plan is to allow individuals as young as 55 to "buy in" to Medicare--the federally funded program for healthcare for Seniors.

In each case--what we see at work is the triumph of "universal coverage" over "controlling costs". And this must be what Republicans and conservatives use to defeat the plan ultimately.

I'll leave it again up to CBO to help us determine the number of uninsured that this will take off the streets, but I don't believe it will be substantial. What will happen though is a huge increase in the number of people on medicare (how were you going to pay for this all again Senate Dems? Reductions in medicare, right? Whoops--not with millions of new people in the system!), and a huge increase in the number of people in federally sponsored insurance plans. Put another way, the Federal Government will gain additional coercive power to set prices and compensation levels for those their programs. Doctors and hospitals will have little choice but to swallow hard and accept the Feds mandates--and then pass the costs along to everyone else with private health insurance (i.e--YOUR costs go up). Additionally, YOUR costs will go up in the form of the taxes you will pay to fund the government's share of the FEHBP-like programs AND the increased number of people within the Medicare system.

Is there ANYTHING good in the changes the Senate is making? I think so, and it would be worthwhile to figure out how to sustain it--and that is, the decision to extend Medicare eligibility to those older than 55 would make insurance available to a group of people particularly vulnerable to the "pre-existing condition" stigma. That is, if you get laid off, fired, etc at 57 years of age--and you then re-enter the work force--you are far more likely (I am guessing here) to be denied coverage by your new-employer due to pre-existing conditions than if you had lost your job as a 34 year old (see this post for the horrors of aging). I see the Feds as the "insurer of last resort" in this case, and as long as we as a society are repelled by the notion of someone being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, this seems like a worthwhile step.

Stay tuned for more and better analysis as greater understanding of the bill's changes come available.

Some Tips for Tiger on the Subject of Managing a Harem

Some keen advice for Tiger--here's a snippet:

"Philandering men—even celebs—are not uniformly arrogant jerks. Those with a gift for harem management can leave a woman with warm, nostalgic feelings, an afterglow of romantic gratitude. An essential skill for men who choose to cheat, which some are lucky to be born with, is the ability to conduct a love affair without turning the "other woman" into a potential enemy."

H/T Instapundit

The Shoe Shine

I spent 21 years in the Navy, and shined shoes were a basic part of the uniform of the day. I'll have to admit that my shoes on sea-duty weren't always up to snuff (blackened would be a better description), but on shore duty, I stepped up the standards quite a bit--largely because of the wonders of even an average shoe shine.

Firstly--the military permits the wearing of an abomination known as "Corf(r)am" shoes (I don't reallly know the spelling, and they are so repellent that I won't even look it up) which are essentially adult patent leather shoes that one uses Windex to spruce up now and then. I've never known an officer I respect who wears these. Perhaps one reading might chime in here, at which point I'll be forced to admit I don't respect you.

For years, I wore the plain, black navy oxford found at the uniform shop--and shined them myself--a job I detested, but did because it was required. About the time I made Lieutenant, I decided that the default approach would be professional shoe shines, and that I would do them only under emergency circumstances (like an inspection). It wasn't until the early part of this decade when I was seated next to Colonel Dan that I was introduced to "really living". Colonel Dan couldn't believe that I was still wearing uniform shop leathers--he introduced me to finely made black leather oxfords--costing at least twice what you paid at the uniform shop--but that you could return for "recrafting" for a nominal fee after they began to wear. This extended the life of the shoe almost indefinitely--in addition to putting a man in a pair of black oxfords that simply felt better--much better--than what was available through the uniform store.

Essential to the care and maintenance of a fine shoe is the professionally administered shoe shine. I've always wondered what it was about getting nails done that was such a rush for women--but enthroned on the shine stand this morning, watching the little people hustle by on the way to their daily hell--I realized that rush. The shoe shine is one of life's simple pleasures. For $7, you sit, relax, and get up a shinier version of your previous self. If your craftsman can speak English, you might enjoy pleasant male banter (football, women, the economy). If your craftsman does not speak English (well) as mine this morning did not, well then you have a few moments to sit and read your Blackberry, meditate, watch the people walk by or read the paper. None of which are bad things.

Additionally, there is simply something regal about the whole process. There's the physical height thing (always important to the vertically challenged); there's the leather splendor of the stand; and no matter how you get around it, there's a guy basically kneeling at your feet to perform the job, almost like a footman stepping off the carriage to ensure a step is placed at the door. I know, I know--most people don't have those images, just those with delusions of grandeur.

I would NEVER get my shoes shined by a woman. Sorry. I realize it is sexist--but the idea is anathema. Whether words are passed or not, the shoe-shine is an opportunity for male bonding of a special brand.

CW Media Week Continues

Just a reminder that my 15 minutes of fame continues this week in South Jersey, as my HS cable channel runs my interview with "Where Are They Now". Here's the run down for the rest of the week:

Wednesday (Dec 9) Noon
Thursday (Dec 10) 9:00 AM and 8:00PM
Friday (December 11) 4:00PM
Saturday (December 12) Noon
Sunday (December 13) 9:00 AM and 8:00PM

For folks folks in South Jersey, this show can be seen on Comcast Channel 19 or Verizon FIOS Channel 21.

For those in Cyberspace, tune in to The Lenape Channel during the times indicated above to watch on the web (though your browser must be something other than Firefox to do so).

A Look at the CBO

The Congressional Budget Office has risen to prominence amidst the ongoing healthcare debate, with each bill coming forward creating a papal election-like period of anticipation while the CBO "scores" it for revenue/deficit impact. And while imperfect, CBO is one of the things that Congress can point to having created for which it should be justifiably proud.

Peter Suderman at Reason Magazine gives us a good look at CBO here.

Old Man Injuries

I read this Stephen Hayes piece in The Weekly Standard last week, and was waiting for it to appear on the web so I could share it with you. Not only did it hit very, very close to home--what with my 44 year old body falling apart daily--but it is also pretty damn funny.

Among the maladies described here is a three-day couch recovery brought on by the strain of rising from the can after a long reading session there. I'm still giggling over that one.

I seem to suffer from my own version of NFL player related injury (something described in the article). Every time I see or hear of a player complaining of a hamstring pull or a hamstring spasm--sustained in the heat of Sunday battle--I am reminded of my recurring hamstring spasms, generally evidenced in the strain of getting out of bed or worse, when engaged in more delicate romantic activities.

Sucks to get old.

Ezra Klein Finally Gets One Right

Ezra Klein is an insufferably liberal columnist at the Washington Post. He's smart, but I'm not exactly sure what he's ever done, know what I mean? But this column on healthcare costs is just plain good. Really good.

And Just Because.....

I doubt whether many of you have ever seen a beached whale dynamited with 20 cases of TNT, I give you The Exploding Whale.

HT/NRO

Tax Rant

Many of you know how riled I get about the fact that so many Americans pay no income tax. How many (or what percentage), you may ask? Feast your eyes on the graph above to the left. Or are you one of those people who think the rich don't pay their "fair share" of income taxes? Well, take a look at the graph on the right.

Graphs from AEI's blog, HT Jonah Goldberg at NRO

When Does It Become Obama's Economy?

The President gave another speech today about the economy, and once again, he pointed his finger at his Republican predecessor for the economy he inherited. Ok, he's right. There was a Republican before him, things sucked when he took over--we get it, we get it.

When will someone in our vaunted, Republic defending press corps, ask the President straight up when he no longer gets to blame the last guy? When will a reporter look the President in the eye and ask, "Sir, you've been in office for almost a year. If the economy is not yours now, if the state of the economy we are currently in is not your fault, when do you estimate that it will be?"

Don't hold your breath.

UVA Football Program Announcement

The UVA Athletic Department is scheduled to hold a news conference at 1PM--perhaps a new coach announcement?

Follow it on the web at VirginiaSports.com

When Did He Find Time To Golf?

The Sun is reporting that a sixth woman has been linked to golfer Tiger Woods...

And you know what they say, "If you see it in the Sun, it's so."

EPA To Declare CO2 A Public Danger; Warns Americans To Stop Exhaling

The WSJ is reporting that Obama's EPA will announce as early as today that CO2 has become a public danger.

Plants and trees are advised to begin CO2 rationing...

CW on Web and TV

A reminder to those interested that the initial running of my interview with the Lenape Channel (described here) can be seen today at 0900 Eastern on channel 19 and 21 on Comcast and Fios respectively in South Jersey OR on on the web at http://www.lrhsd.org/ldtvlive.

If you're able to catch it (I can't) and wish to comment, leave them here.

Samuelson on "Health Care Nation"

The Anti-Krugman strikes again. Key graphs:

"Obama's health-care proposals may be undesirable (they are), but it's mindless to oppose them -- as many Republicans do -- by screaming that they'll lead to "rationing." Almost everything in society is "rationed," either by price (if you can't afford it, you can't buy it) or explicit political decisions (school boards have budgets). Health care is an exception; it enjoys an open tab. The central political problem of health-care nation is to find effective and acceptable ways to limit medical spending.

Democrats are no better. Obama talks hypocritically about restraining deficits and controlling health costs while his program would increase spending and worsen the budget outlook. Democrats congratulate themselves on caring for the uninsured -- who already receive much care -- while avoiding any major overhaul of the delivery system. The resulting society discriminates against the young and increasingly assigns economic resources and political choice to an unrestrained medical-industrial complex."

This Is The Way Countries On The Rise Do Energy

Here's a story on Brazil's move to exploit massive oil deposits off its coast. This from a country that has already diversified its energy supply by indigenous production of sugarcane ethanol, to the tune of nearly 17% of its energy supply.

Should we be investing in wind and solar? Yes. But also nuclear and domestic oil production. There is no silver bullet--there is only the continuing prospect of petro-extortion from countries that want to kill us.

Public Apology to Goldwater's Ghost

Some of you may remember a post from GG last week--a picture of former President Clinton with an invitation from GG to caption it. A good number of captions were suggested, and I got into the fun too.

But as the weekend wore on, the caption inputs became more and more blatantly suggestive and fell beneath the standards of the blog.

So I deleted the entire post.

In retrospect, I should have just deleted the offending captions--I did not, as I did not want to have to go back several more times as the captions continued.

I apologize for my laziness--I should have left the post and gotten rid of the comments. Lesson learned.

Tom Friedman On Afghanistan

Tom Friedman's evidently come out in opposition to the President's surge in Afghanistan, but he goes the extra mile in ensuring his place in a future Obama golf foursome with his pained dissent. Here's a clip of some of it.

Later in the interview, Friedman referred to the President's surge in Afghanistan as akin to "...an unemployed couple adopting a special needs baby." Ouch. That hurt.

Inside Obama's Afghanistan Decision

Interesting story here from this morning's Washington Post on the decision-making process behind the President's recent announcement on energizing our effort in Afghanistan. A couple of things become clear:

1. I am comfortable and satisfied with the President's maturity and judgment in how he went about his decision-making here. Only time will tell if it was the RIGHT decision, but I cannot argue with the mechanics.
2. The beating that General McChrystal took in the press--a bit of it here in this blog (which I subsequently took back)--for providing the President a "do it this way or we'll lose" plan was completely and thoroughly wrong. As is evident from this piece--McChystal's plan responded to the political requirements that were placed on him. He did his job, he did it well. The politicians then realized that the MISSION HE WAS GIVEN was potentially unachievable within the political risk space they were willing to operate.
3. General Jones as National Security Adviser--clearly, early in the administration, someone was out to discredit him. Given the extent to which Special Envoy to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke has been marginalized (and his well-known talent for behind the scenes smears) I believe Holbrooke led this effort. But if you look at the folks at the top--Gates, Clinton, Jones--you see people who appear to be working well together and tackling tough policy questions with collegiality. This is the mark of a superior National Security Adviser.

Portrait of TARP-Man

I've said several times in this blog that the only thing that government did (Bush or Obama) in the midst of the financial melt-down that actually had ANYTHING concrete to do with the current recovery was the bank bail-out--otherwise known as TARP. Moving to ensure liquidity and keep the system from imploding upon itself set the basis for the slow unwinding of the markets we've seen since March. House Republicans walking away from the initial version of it was a dark day for the party.

In this WaPost portrait--Neel Kashkari--the man Hank Paulson called upon to devise and administer TARP--is featured. This is the story of a man who worked his ass off for the good of the country, only to be savaged by the preening ponies of the Congress. Kashkari has dropped out of site to the woods of Northern California to rebuild himself, his marriage, and his life. This is a man who deserves praise for a job well-done.